Results
Displaying 6141 - 6150 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WA - Exotic Pet - Chapter 16.30. Dangerous Wild Animals | West's RCWA 16.30.005 - 900 | WA ST 16.30.005 - 900 | This Washington chapter passed in 2007 regulates the keeping of dangerous wild animals. By definition, a potentially dangerous wild animal includes, among others, lions, tigers, captive-bred cougars, jaguars, cheetahs, leopards, wolves, (but excluding wolf-hybrids), bears, hyenas, non-human primates, elephants, rhinoceroses, certain reptiles, and venomous snakes. A person shall not own, possess, keep, harbor, bring into the state, or have custody or control of a potentially dangerous wild animal. A person in legal possession of a potentially dangerous wild animal prior to July 22, 2007, and who is the legal possessor of the animal may keep possession of the animal for the remainder of the animal's life. | Statute |
| AL - Ordinances - Section 11-3A-2. Powers for Public Welfare, Health, and Safety; Authorization; Scope. | Ala. Code 1975 § 11-3A-2 | AL ST § 11-3A-2 | This statute authorizes each county commission to enact ordinances for the control of animals and animal nuisances. | Statute |
| Proceso No. 15111-2014-0152 Jaguar Killing , 2015 - Ecuador | Proceso No. 15111-2014-0152 | This case regards a defendant who shot and killed a jaguar, which was an endangered species, allegedly in the name of defense and necessity. The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not require defense or true necessity, that he had to prove that he did not kill the jaguar, and that in circumstances of uncertainty, the court should hold in favor of nature (in dubio pro natura). The defendant was not a hunter and was not actively hunting the jaguar. Ecuadorian environmental law states that anyone who “hunts” a legally protected species will be punished with incarceration. The court discussed concepts of Ecuadorian constitutional law, rights of nature, and the juxtaposition of human beings working within the habitats of wild, and potentially predatory, animals. After a detailed discussion, the court accepted the appeal and unanimously agreed to punish the defendant with six months' prison time. | Case | |
| WA - Eggs - Chapter 96.25. Washington Wholesome Eggs and Egg Products Act | West's RCWA 69.25.010 - 930 | Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 69.25.010 - 930 | This collection of Washington laws prohibits the confinement of egg-laying hens in battery cages and mandates the use of cage-free housing. The laws also ban the sale of eggs in Washington from producers that house egg-laying hens in battery cages. These laws apply to egg producers in the state of Washington and out of state producers. | Statute |
| England, Wales & Scotland - Wildlife - Deer Act 1991 | 1991 CHAPTER 54 | This Act makes it a an offence to take or intentionally kill certain deer during the closed season, and to kill any deer at night (with exceptions). Various methods used to take or kill deer are also prohibited. | Statute | |
| Mahtani v. Wyeth | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 2609857 (D.N.J.) |
After some plaintiffs alleged their dogs suffered harmed as a result of using a tick and flea treatment medication, while others alleged the product was ineffective, plaintiffs sought to gain class certification in their lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company. Since the district court found that individual inquiry into questions of fact predominated over inquiry into facts common to class members regarding the plaintiffs’ New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Unjust Enrichment and Breach of Warranty claims, the plaintiff’s motion for class certification was denied. |
Case | |
| State of Florida v. Peters | 534 So.2d 760 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1988). | This is an appeal from an order of the county court invalidating a City of North Miami ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs. The ordinance in question, City of North Miami Ordinance No. 422.5, regulates the ownership of pit bulls by requiring their owners to carry insurance or furnish other evidence of financial responsibility, register their pit bulls with the City, and confine the dogs indoors or in a locked pen. The court dismissed defendants claims that the ordinance violates equal protection and due process, and that the ordinance's definition of a pit bull is on its face unconstitutionally vague. | Case | |
| TX - Horse - Sale of Horsemeat (Chapter 149. Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption) | V. T. C. A., Agriculture Code § 149.001 - 007 | TX AGRIC § 149.001 - 007 | These statutes prohibit the sale of horsemeat, the possession of horsemeat with the intent to sell, and the knowing transfer of horsemeat to a person who intends to sell it for human consumption. Horsemeat is defined as the flesh of an animal of the genus equus. Prima facie evidence of an offense is prescribed by these statues and includes, for example, the presence of horsemeat in a restaurant or cafe. The penalty for an offense may be a fine of up to a $1,000, confinement for not less than 30 days and not more than two years, or both a fine and confinement. | Statute |
| Night monkey in a small dirty cage | Slideshow Images | |||
| MD - Lien - § 16-701. Veterinarian's rights | MD Code, Commercial Law, § 16-701 | MD COML § 16-701 | This Maryland law is the state's veterinary lien law. Notice for services rendered by a qualified veterinarian or commercial boarding kennel operator may be given in person, by registered or certified mail or, if the owner's address is unknown, by posting the notice for 10 days on the door of the courthouse or on a bulletin board in the immediate vicinity of the courthouse of the county where the animal is located. If the animal is not claimed and taken by the owner within 10 days of the date the notice is given or posted, the owner forfeits his title to the animal. | Statute |